election.
http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2012presidentindividual
Still 8 weeks to the election and things could change, but with conventions over and vice presidential picks made, the opportunities for game changing events is dwindling. Maybe the debates, but really the best chance for a game changer in debates, isn't a candidate doing well. It is his opponent really screwing up and while not impossible Obama screw up, it isn't likely. One other possible game changer is October jobs report, but it would have to be really bad. Something like unemployment rate jump to 8.5% or more. I think 8.1-8.3 % is already factored in.
that 4 more years of Obama is the right way to go.
Things aren't really that bad, they could be worse.
And Obama has a proven track record now, why
take a chance on somebody new when with Obama
we know what we're getting. With everything going
in Obama's direction now, I think Romney should
just give up. I mean, at this point in 1988 Dukakis
was up 17 points over Bush Sr and...
Oh, wait a minute. Bad example. Uhhh, never mind...
Quote: EvenBobI mean, at this point in 1988 Dukakis
was up 17 points over Bush Sr and...
Oh, wait a minute. Bad example. Uhhh, never mind...
Well, yes. Bad example. In 1988, Bush was the sitting VP, and he'd pretty much run the country for 2 years while Reagan napped. The Challenger was up 17, and his lead crumbled. In this election, the challenger is already trailing. Plus, thanks to Dukakis, both of these candidates know now to stay the hell away from heavy military equipment:-)
Oh, and the Dow closed today at a 5 year high. That can't hold for too long or the "Obama recovery" line of attack is going to get pretty muddy pretty fast.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-09/what-september-polls-say-about-election-s-outcome.html
Quote: rdw4potuswas up 17, and his lead crumbled. .
But Dukakis was up 17 none the less. But we
all know we need 4 more years of Obama.
Um, what are the reasons we need him, I
keep forgetting.. Is it because he isn't Bush,
is that one of them? That dang Bush..
Quote: EvenBobBut Dukakis was up 17 none the less. But we
all know we need 4 more years of Obama.
Um, what are the reasons we need him, I
keep forgetting.. Is it because he isn't Bush,
is that one of them? That dang Bush..
...or wasn't up, depending on whether you'd rather trust Bob's memory or Bloomberg's reporting, I guess:-)
As for why we "need' Obama, yes, he's definitely not Bush. I've heard a rumour that he's also not Romney.
Quote: EvenBobBut Dukakis was up 17 none the less. But we
all know we need 4 more years of Obama.
Um, what are the reasons we need him, I
keep forgetting.. Is it because he isn't Bush,
is that one of them? That dang Bush..
Is golf a reason? In the middle of June this
year, Obama had already played 4 times
more golf than Bush played in 8 years. And
the media was all over Bush for it. Is this
a reason to keep Obama?
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/18/obama-has-golfed-four-times-more-than-bush-did-in-eight-years/
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1320&dat=19880727&id=NUBWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HuoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4600,3828678
Quote: EvenBobIs golf a reason? In the middle of June this
year, Obama had already played 4 times
more golf than Bush played in 8 years. And
the media was all over Bush for it. Is this
a reason to keep Obama?
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/18/obama-has-golfed-four-times-more-than-bush-did-in-eight-years/
Hmm...different people have different hobbies. Film at 11:-)
Quote: EvenBobAP story from 1988 (I'm sure they were lying):
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1320&dat=19880727&id=NUBWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HuoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4600,3828678
July 27, 1988 and September 11, 2012 are not the same point in the election cycle. It is not anywhere remotely close to an accurate statement to say "at this point in 1988, Dukakis was up by 17."
Quote: rdw4potusHmm...different people have different hobbies. Film at 11:-)
The reason Obama plays 4 times more golf than
Bush is he has 4 times less to do than Bush did.
When you delegate all your duties as president
to underlings, except wiping your butt, it leaves
a lot of time on your hands.
Quote: EvenBobThe reason Obama plays 4 times more golf than
Bush is he has 4 times less to do than Bush did.
When you delegate all your duties as president
to underlings, except wiping your butt, it leaves
a lot of time on your hands.
That might be part of it. But also, Obama doesn't like hunting or fishing or working on his ranch. So, you know, there's that too.
Quote: EvenBobAP story from 1988 (I'm sure they were lying):
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1320&dat=19880727&id=NUBWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HuoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4600,3828678
Com' on bob. This story was in July 1988, days after the Democratic convention ended (bounce), and before the Republican convention started. Hardly compares to September of any election cycle which is what my post was about. You used factually incorrect, misinformation to respond to my original post in a factually incorrect manner. Be a man and admit it.
Quote: rdw4potusThat might be part of it. But also, Obama doesn't like hunting or fishing or working on his ranch. So, you know, there's that too.
Obama skips most of his daily security briefings,
that leaves lots of spare time right there. And
with the country in such great shape, really, what
does he have to do.
Is this why we need him for a few more years? Its
a real puzzle.
Quote: kewljCom' on bob. This story was in July 1988, days after the Democratic convention ended (bounce), and before the Republican convention started. Hardly compares to September of any election cycle which is what my post was about. You used factually incorrect, misinformation to respond to my original post in a factually incorrect manner. Be a man and admit it.
The Bloomberg article said: "Over the last 40 years,
the shape of most presidential races was evident
in the September polls that followed the convention."
AP quoted two polls AFTER the convention that said:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1320&dat=19880727&id=NUBWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HuoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4600,3828678
And these were valid Gallup and Newsweek polls,
not some rinkydink polls from Sasquatch, IN.
But, uh oh, an ABC poll of likely voters yesterday shows no bounce
and its a virtual tie. Just when you had me almost convinced.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2929400/posts
Quote: EvenBob
But, uh oh, an ABC poll of likely voters yesterday shows no bounce
and its a virtual tie. Just when you had me almost convinced.
Ahhh, but Bob, I am not trying to convince you or anyone of anything. I am not discussing politics. I am not making a case for who should or shouldn't be president or trying to sway anyone to my position. I'll leave that to you guys. I just stated some observations to which you responded with a totally inaccurate and factually incorrect statement. Now that you have been called on it, you want to try to change what you said or what you meant to say, when the fact is that it is right there for all to read. The honorable thing would have been to say, "yes, I made a mistake". "Used incorrect data from the wrong time period to incorrectly support my claim". But that's just not you. Can't say that I am surprised.
2008--McCain ahead in polls, Obama wins election (0-1)
2004--Bush takes both (1-1)
2000--Gore ahead in polls, Bush wins election (1-2-0 or 1-1-1, depending on how you look at it...elections do matter; Bush won)
1996--Clinton takes both (2-2-0)
Going further back, they are 6-2-0...but recent history shows them not to be as good at predicting the winner.
Quote: kewljI just stated some observations to which you responded with a totally inaccurate and factually incorrect
The links I provided were totally inaccurate? I don't think so..
Quote: RonCbut recent history shows them not to be as good at predicting the winner.
And the wascally wrongfully accused right wing leaning
Rasmussun poll was the most accurate in 2008 of showing
Obama as the winner. For a right wing poll they sure screwed
that up.
And constitutionally enshrining anti gay discrimination
are not as appealing as romney
and his brownshirt followers think....
Quote: WongBoI guess overturning roe v wade and Women's rights to their own bodies,
And constitutionally enshrining anti gay discrimination
are not as appealing as romney
and his brownshirt followers think....
Wow, the president can overturn a Supreme Court
decision, and change the constitution to ban Gay
marriage? I bet you're the only one that knows that..
Roe vs Wade was passed right in the middle of Nixon's
presidency, how did he let that happen? Its almost like
the president can't effect those things, isn't it. Dinking
the moveon.org KoolAid and sniffing their glue doesn't
make everything they say true, I'm afraid.
Sorry to inconvenience you with the facts.
Please read it again.
Did I say he could do it alone?
Quote: WongBo
Did I say he could do it alone?
He can't do it at all! Any more than Nixon
could have halted Roe. These are just tired
old Dem talking points, like the Right wants
to have grandma eating dog food, starve
your kids at school, and poison the air and
water. Its been 40 years of this nonsense
every election year, it never changes.
Quote: EvenBobIts almost like
the president can't effect those things, isn't it.
You're right! Reagan had nothing at all to do with the outcome of Bush v Gore or Citizens United. Nothing at all.
this morning and said this about Obama:
There's such a thing as presidential leadership. Look, it's quite
obvious that Obama has a distance from these people (congress). He doesn't
spend the time. He hasn't built the relationships. And those human
relationships matter. This book is a warning document. We are right
back in the problem, and this can affect everyone in a very serious way.
And Woodward is a Lib! He's an associate editor
at the Washing Post!
So is this a reason we need
4 more years of Obama, so he can change from
distant and aloof, into being a good president? He
just needs more time?
Quote: EvenBob
And Woodward is a Lib! He's an associate editor
at the Washing Post!
Evenbob is a Lib! He lives in Michigan!
Quote: rdw4potusYou're right! Reagan had nothing at all to do with the outcome of Bush v Gore or Citizens United. Nothing at all.
Not sure how Reagan affected a scouts ruling, one after he was dead. But if he helped free speech and stopped Gore from stealing the election as FlSC was trying to help him do then he was even greater than we thought.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot sure how Reagan affected a scouts ruling, one after he was dead. But if he helped free speech and stopped Gore from stealing the election as FlSC was trying to help him do then he was even greater than we thought.
He appointed both Scalia and Kennedy. My point being that Presidents have an impact long after their terms end.
I'm not sure that I agree that Citizens United helped free speech. It certainly makes some voices much louder than others, though it also made it easier for all to speak.
Quote: rdw4potusI'm not sure that I agree that Citizens United helped free speech. It certainly makes some voices much louder than others, though it also made it easier for all to speak.
Unfortunately, the presidential debates will be under the commie format of equal time, instead of Lush Limproot shouty match where boobs gather round and listen to farting sound of gas bag on the radio.
It's funny because it's true :)Quote: rxwine...Lush Limproot...
Quote: rdw4potusEvenbob is a Lib! He lives in Michigan!
You think Woodward is on the Right, then. LOL,
let me write that down..
Quote: rdw4potus
I'm not sure that I agree that Citizens United helped free speech. It certainly makes some voices much louder than others, though it also made it easier for all to speak.
Anything that restricts what can be spent by who in politics is a restriction of free speech. The speech in the First Ammendment meant to be protected is POLITICAL speech. It really wasn't made for "freedom of expression" though it has worked out that way. What McCain-Feingold did was trample the Constitution.
Why people think we are supposed to "get the money out of politics" amazes me. Why so many folks can be so naive to think that limiting funds in politics is a good thing is plain scary.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy people think we are supposed to "get the money out of politics" amazes me. Why so many folks can be so naive to think that limiting funds in politics is a good thing is plain scary.
Yeah, it would be scary if Obama, Romney, Ron Paul, etc., and possibly some people who we never hear much from, all had to cobble together ads from equal amounts of a general fund, and PACS and wealthy people couldn't buy influence. SCARY.
to meet with the head of Israel, but has time for
the 'pimp with a limp'. Obama has my vote!
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/09/dolphins-dissing-president-obama-chats-pitbull-medicare-on-911-with-pimp-with-the-limp-dj.html
Quote: LonesomeGamblerWait, is this a betting thread, or another tiresome political thread?
You'll have to guess.
Noted and Quoted!Quote: EvenBobObama has my vote!
Quote: EvenBobYou think Woodward is on the Right, then. LOL,
let me write that down..
I think the center exists. In fact, I'm sure of it.
Quote: rxwineYeah, it would be scary if Obama, Romney, Ron Paul, etc., and possibly some people who we never hear much from, all had to cobble together ads from equal amounts of a general fund, and PACS and wealthy people couldn't buy influence. SCARY.
No, what would be scary would be having to be approved to be allowed to spend from some "general fund" to get your message out. Are you serious? Having to ask to get approval to get your message out from some bureacrat?
Such a system would be the END OF ALL FREE SPEECH.
PACS are people. And if you are wealthy and can get your message out better, good for you.
Sorry to dissapoint, but spending money to get a message out is Freedom of Speech. If you want a system where "money does not influence" there is always Cuba.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf you want a system where "money does not influence" there is always Cuba.
On the flip side, you could go to Eastern Europe or Northern Africa. I hear money influences all sorts of governmental actions in those places.
Quote: rdw4potusOn the flip side, you could go to Eastern Europe or Northern Africa. I hear money influences all sorts of governmental actions in those places.
Money can influence in many places. What is your point, that you do not want to be able to have any influence? That you do not want the ability to pool money with hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people to use resources to get your message out?
Again, sorry to burst yours or anyone's bubble but spending money = free speech. Free speech is more than just walking in a park with a sign. It includes things like buying ads, which costs *shudder* MONEY.
Quote: AZDuffmanMoney can influence in many places. What is your point, that you do not want to be able to have any influence? That you do not want the ability to pool money with hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people to use resources to get your message out?
Again, sorry to burst yours or anyone's bubble but spending money = free speech. Free speech is more than just walking in a park with a sign. It includes things like buying ads, which costs *shudder* MONEY.
Sure. It's the idea that more money buys more speech that's a little problematic with respect to elections. one person = one vote; $100,000,000 = 100,000,000 times more "free speech" than $1.
Edit: and my point was that we should probably avoid becoming a place where it's possible to literally just buy an election. I hear that those places kind of suck.
Quote: rdw4potusSure. It's the idea that more money buys more speech that's a little problematic with respect to elections. one person = one vote; $100,000,000 = 100,000,000 times more "free speech" than $1.
Sure is, so the idea should be to try to get resources; combine with others; and do whatever is possible to get your message out as possible. One crank with wild ideas does not somehow have a "right" to the same results as a PAC that organized itself to get their message out. OTOH, that same crank does have a right to get together with other cranks and form their own PAC. If the message is well-received then it will keep going and feed on itself. If it is a bad message it will die.
Lets take an example of real-life groups that seek to change laws. MADD was formed to stregnthen laws against driving under the influence of alcohol. NAMBLA was formed to lower the age of consent to allow sex between grown men and young boys. Both have the freedom to get their message out. MADD has a message many people agree with and gets funds to keep getting their message out and to keep lobbying. NAMBLA has few who agree with their mission, in fact most (rightly, IMO) find the group disgusting and would have to be forced at gunpoint to offer them money or help. So they get little to none.
However, under the ides of "equal amounts from a general fund? then NAMBLA would have an equal amount to spend on their message and lobbying as MADD.
Still seem like such a good idea?
Quote:Edit: and my point was that we should probably avoid becoming a place where it's possible to literally just buy an election. I hear that those places kind of suck.
The best way to do that is to allow unlimited spending by any person or group. Simple economics shows that when more money chases the same finite supply then the price of the supply goes up, meaning the cost of "buying an election" gets so high nobody can do so.
Quote: AZDuffmanSure is, so the idea should be to try to get resources; combine with others; and do whatever is possible to get your message out as possible. One crank with wild ideas does not somehow have a "right" to the same results as a PAC that organized itself to get their message out. OTOH, that same crank does have a right to get together with other cranks and form their own PAC. If the message is well-received then it will keep going and feed on itself. If it is a bad message it will die.
Lets take an example of real-life groups that seek to change laws. MADD was formed to stregnthen laws against driving under the influence of alcohol. NAMBLA was formed to lower the age of consent to allow sex between grown men and young boys. Both have the freedom to get their message out. MADD has a message many people agree with and gets funds to keep getting their message out and to keep lobbying. NAMBLA has few who agree with their mission, in fact most (rightly, IMO) find the group disgusting and would have to be forced at gunpoint to offer them money or help. So they get little to none.
However, under the ides of "equal amounts from a general fund? then NAMBLA would have an equal amount to spend on their message and lobbying as MADD.
Still seem like such a good idea?
The best way to do that is to allow unlimited spending by any person or group. Simple economics shows that when more money chases the same finite supply then the price of the supply goes up, meaning the cost of "buying an election" gets so high nobody can do so.
How did we make the giant leap from talking about elections to talking about issues lobbying? Was there ever any proposal anywhere that would limit funding for issues lobbying?
Quote: rdw4potusHow did we make the giant leap from talking about elections to talking about issues lobbying? Was there ever any proposal anywhere that would limit funding for issues lobbying?
Well, where do you think the funds for the candidates are coming from?
Quote: AZDuffmanWell, where do you think the funds for the candidates are coming from?
I'm 100% sure it isn't NAMBLA.
Quote: rdw4potusI'm 100% sure it isn't NAMBLA.
It doesn't matter if it did or not, and any sane POTUS candidate would refuse a check from that group. But that is not the point. The point was to use one of the more respected groups vs one of the most repulsive to show that if you have a good message you can get it out and affect outcomes. MADD was started by one woman. That woman didn't go crying and say, "The liquor companies have all the money, it isn't fair!" No, she built an organization. In less than 5 years it got huge, and made a huge difference.
I have no idea how NAMBLA got started, but it is a safe bet that it was one to just a few people who got the idea. It gets nowhere. The only candidates who would take their money are candidates who are on some far-out fringe and will take any donation from anyone. They do, however, have a right to try to get their message across. But even if some Hollywood-type gave them $10MM it is a safe bet that as soon as they bought ads (or influenced in whatever way) various other gorups would raise 10 times as much to fight them.
Enough about that sick group. Again, I used them to pick what might be generally considered the most repugnant group around and show that if we had "public funding only" what would happen. My point is EVERYONE IS A "SPECIAL INTEREST." YOU are. I am. Teachers Unions are, heck all unions are. The military is. Automakers are. Everyone.
And without ability to spend whatever a person wants, their right to free speech is limited.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, what would be scary would be having to be approved to be allowed to spend from some "general fund" to get your message out. Are you serious? Having to ask to get approval to get your message out from some bureacrat?
Such a system would be the END OF ALL FREE SPEECH.
PACS are people. And if you are wealthy and can get your message out better, good for you.
What you're saying is, my message and your message is getting out under the current system. I'm like a Koch brother, unto myself. Sure. Whatever, delude yourself with that idea.
Funny how you guys see either socialism or capitalism and no gray areas. It's like no other version of government exists. How pathetic.
Quote: rxwine
Funny how you guys see either socialism or capitalism and no gray areas. It's like no other version of government exists. How pathetic.
+1.
